Intel processor revenue share drops less than 1% as AMD's share grows by more than 2%

AMD and Intel by far the two largest processor firms around and Intel is
many times larger than AMD. Intel holds a huge percentage of the global
processor market, while AMD is a distant second in both revenue and marketshare.

Research firm iSuppli released its global
statistics for the processor market. According to iSuppli, Intel holds a
massive 79.7% of the world’s processor revenues leaving AMD with 10.9% of the
global processor revenue.

When the revenue numbers are compared to Q1 2007, Intel’s revenue share in
the processor market has dropped by 0.7%. At the same time AMD has been able to
grow its share of the processor market revenue by 2.2%. According to iSuppli,
AMD’s gain is a sign that consumers are responding better to AMD products.

ISuppli estimates that about half of AMD’s growth in revenue market share
came at the expense of Intel and that the remainder came at the expense of the
smaller processor makers. ISuppli also says that average selling prices from
both Intel and AMD didn’t decrease in the first quarter of 2008 signaling that
price wars between Intel and AMD have stopped.

Between Intel and AMD the two firms hold 92.7% of the total microprocessor
market worldwide estimated to be worth about $286.5 billion in 2008. Despite
the weakened U.S. economy, computer sales are still going strong.

COME ON, Pirks... you're a die-hard fan of AMD if you claim that points such as overclocking don't matter. Of course they do. The amd 6000 isn't likely to be overclocked much more (I'm expecting you to find a stupidly large water/liquid hydrogen solution to prove me wrong), while the Intel ones have masses of head room.

You first wanted to see 45W Intel dual-core CPUs.. so I showed you proof of Intel dual-core CPUs drawing less than 45W. In later posts you added "TDP", which is entirely different from *actual* power consumption.

I can show you a truly remarkable CPU that draws 0W.. it's the CPU in my computer when the computer is unplugged. Irrelevant, you say? Of course, but that's not the point.

The point is that power consumption, as a measurement taken alone, is useless. What truly matters is how much performance you get out of each watt the CPU consumes. In that measurement, it's hard to beat the Wolfdale across *all* applications, not just games.

quote: Now this is a statement that I expect to be supported by something more solid than just your words. I can say a lot of things too, but gimme hard numbers. Where's the compariosn of performance per watt between Wolfdale and 45W X2? Where are these live numbers, huh? Can't see them!

Such comparisons haven't been made yet, but let's consider the following:

- The X2 4850e is Brisbane.. so its performance (at any power draw) is going to be the same.

- The E8500 performs considerably faster than the E6600, let's average it at about 15%. Add the advantage of the E6600 over Brisbane at 2.5GHz of, on average, 15%, and you have a total of 30% faster than the 4850e.

- Performance-per-watt of Wolfdale vs 4850e is roughly as follows: approximately 30% faster performance for approximately 30% more power, which is hardly the clearcut win you were hoping for.

Since the ratings Intel and AMD assign are calculated differently, you have to go beyond the specified ratings and acquire actual numbers on how much power is being consumed and how much heat dissipated in order to draw any useful conclusions.

So why don't you provide me with those actual numbers, huh? ;-) I just know from the marketing numbers that Athlon X2 has 45W and Wolfdale has 65W ratings. If you can't provide numbers that prove me wrong - why did you start posting here in the first place?

quote: What's the point in that if Athlon X2 consumes even less power than Wolfdale?

You first wanted to see 45W Intel dual-core CPUs.. so I showed you proof of Intel dual-core CPUs drawing less than 45W. In later posts you added "TDP", which is entirely different from *actual* power consumption.

I can show you a truly remarkable CPU that draws 0W.. it's the CPU in my computer when the computer is unplugged. Irrelevant, you say? Of course, but that's not the point.

The point is that power consumption, as a measurement taken alone, is useless. What truly matters is how much performance you get out of each watt the CPU consumes. In that measurement, it's hard to beat the Wolfdale across *all* applications, not just games.